Can the landlord charge the tenants apartment management fees?

You can only charge your tenants whatever rent and other charges are in the letting agreement

You can put what you like into it, more or less, but you cannot add fees and charges afterwards

A letting agreement would often have clauses relating to charges that may be added eg waste collection which stipulates who is responsable for paying this
 
Thanks but just so i'm clear, provided all charges are specified in the agreement, not prohibited in the regulations and agreed by the tenant in advance, a landlord can recharge. Is that the same for LPT?
 
The total of the charges, etc would be considered the rent amount
 
I might be wrong but what I think the OP is asking is can they charge a (new) tenant management fees on top of the maximum allowable rent increase.
 
Leo said:
It's hard to see the RTB not view this as an attempt to bypass the legislation.
Click to expand...

It is clear that charges and taxes other than rent can be charged, as the legislation refers to that more than once in S12 (4). Additional charges and taxes are also referred to in S16(a). It says in accordance with the lease or tenancy agreement so charges need to be specified but it doesnt say they are prohibited.
 
Correct, but the suggestion here is that these charges be introduced some considerable time after the initial lease agreement is put in place. The real issue here pertains to how the RTB would interpret later adding costs not detailed in the original lease agreement that had to that point been covered as part of the stated rent. We know how the RTB work, I wouldn't like to be depending on them thinking it wasn't an increase.
 

There several landlords and vunlture funds using the excuses of management fees and car park fees on top of rents. If those charges were not chargerd before in the "Rent Pressure Zone" landlord introduces it is classified as breaches . There old tenants beeing removed from properties and landlord put new tenants on without tell the new tenant how much old tenant were paying this is a breach under section 19 of the Residential tenant act revised in 2019 .​

Even if the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 talk about services charges they are not allowed in RPZ from 07-2019 as they conflict with regulation introduced under section 19 revised Residential tenant act 2004.​

​

​

Even if your landlord trying to charge you a car park you can refuse . If landlord put it as compulsoty is another good argument of lanlord breach the RPZ and easly you lodge case against lanlord .​

​

​

Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (Revised act )​

​

Search for : revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/19/revised/en/html​

​

Setting of rent above market rent prohibited.
19.—(1) In setting, at any particular time, the rent under the tenancy of a dwelling, an amount of rent shall not be provided for that is greater than the amount of the market rent for that tenancy at that time.

(b) specify in the notice the rent set under the tenancy of the dwelling and the amount of rent last set under the tenancy of the dwelling, and

F54[(5B) Where, in setting, at any particular time, the rent under the tenancy of a dwelling in a rent pressure zone, a landlord seeks to rely on subsection (5), the landlord shall—
F54 Inserted (1.07.2019) by Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 (14/2019), s. 6(c), S.I. No. 286 of 2019.



"new rent" means, in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling, the rent under the tenancy set at the next setting;

"old rent" means, in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling—



Search for : revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2011/act/40/section/90/revised/en/html

Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011​

Certain provisions to be void.
90.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), any provision (whether express or implied) in an agreement in respect of the sale or letting of land whereby the purchaser or tenant, as the case may be, is required to pay or otherwise bear the cost of the licensee’s fees or expenses in respect of the sale or letting, as the case may be, shall be void, and any moneys paid pursuant to such a provision shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall affect the liability of a person to pay fees or expenses to a licensee in respect of the acquisition of any land where the licensee has been retained by the person to acquire such land and does not also act, in respect of such acquisition, on behalf of the person from whom the land is acquired.



 
Last edited:
  • Prohibited Charges:
    • Landlords cannot demand payments for securing a tenancy other than:
      • One month's rent in advance, and
      • A deposit not exceeding one month's rent.
  • Market Rent Cap:
    • The rent for new tenancies must not exceed the market rent for that property.
    • In Rent Pressure Zones (RPZs), any increase in rent (from a previous tenancy in the same property) is limited by specific formulas based on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) or a maximum of 2% annually.
  • Offenses and Penalties:
    • Charging fees or rents that violate these provisions can lead to penalties:
      • Offense for non-compliance with RPZ rent setting rules.
      • Offense for false or misleading information in notices to the Tenancies Board.

  • Increasing rent substantially for new tenants without disclosing the previous rent to them can violate tenant protection laws under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.


  • Additional Charges on New Tenants:
    • The imposition of separate fees for parking and management services on new tenants raises questions about transparency and legality, especially if these were not disclosed during tenancy agreement signing of the old tenant in the Rent Pressure Zone .
 
Last edited:
It may depend on whether or not the service was applied to the old tenant - there were cases for many years esp in city centre where the landlord separately rented a parking space from an apartment. If this was the case then potentially there might be a case to offer it as an optional extra, but it would need to be presented as such.
However, if the previous tenancy included such a service as part of the rent, then no, it would not be legal.

You are correct in how these are interpreted over time - one of the reasons these payments were outlawed was because a) there was a plethora of cases in the mid 00s where agents were trying to charge fees to tenants just to look at properties, and then b) additional service charges were being used to circumvent RPZ rent increase limits.

It used to be common in the old days for landlords to keep bills in their name and ask the tenant for payment, I assume such landlords may have been claiming utilities as an expense. But I also did have an experience where the landlord originally covered the electricity but later on put in a meter and started charging me 2x the then ESB rate, so I gave my notice, as at the time there was nothing illegal about that.
 
Somehow I doubt this is only being done by so-called "vulture funds". Its been a problem on and off for decades.
 

Attachments

  • TR0824-007961_-_DR0124-92243_Tribunal_Report.pdf
    97.1 KB · Views: 3
  • TR0824-007961_-_DR0124-92243_DO.pdf
    101.5 KB · Views: 1
Based on the tribunal report and legal context provided:

Key Findings​

  1. Car Park Fees:
    • The landlord attempted to separately charge €200 for car parking, which was previously included in the original lease agreement signed in July 2020.
    • The tribunal found this action invalid as the original agreement stated a total rent of €1,736 that included the car park. Separating and adding fees later constituted a unilateral change to the terms without tenant agreement.
  2. Eviction Attempt:
    • The eviction notice for non-payment of rent was found invalid:
      • The arrears of €258.57 claimed by the landlord were improperly calculated based on invalidly revised rent (with separately itemized car park and service charges).
      • The tribunal held that this was not consistent with the original lease agreement or properly communicated to the tenant.
  3. RPZ Compliance:
    • The landlord claimed adherence to Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ) rules. However, separating charges (like car park fees) after the lease began violated transparency and fairness principles under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Tribunal Decision​

  • The landlord's Notice of Termination for non-payment of rent was deemed invalid.
  • The tenant was allowed to continue paying the originally agreed rent of €1,736 monthly, inclusive of the car park, unless lawfully varied.

Conclusion​

The landlord was not within their rights to charge separate car park fees beyond the original lease terms. Attempting to evict the tenant for refusing to pay these invalid fees breached tenancy regulations.

If a landlord introduces new charges that were not on the old tenant in
  • Rent Pressure Zone (RPZ) upon in the initial new lease, tenants can challenge this through the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB).

 

Attachments

  • TR0524-007543_DO (2).pdf
    212.1 KB · Views: 0
  • TR0524-007543_Tribunal_Report (5).pdf
    102.7 KB · Views: 2
Breach of RPZ resulted in evicition end up in High Court and landlord has to pay back .


I





 

Attachments

  • 2024_IEHC_521 O Sheehan v Residential Tenancies Board.pdf
    207.2 KB · Views: 4
  • 2024_IEHC_409.pdf
    310.6 KB · Views: 1
  • TR0923-006764_DO.pdf
    60.6 KB · Views: 3
  • TR0923-006764_Tribunal_Report.pdf
    148.5 KB · Views: 1
bipped said:
Thanks but just so i'm clear, provided all charges are specified in the agreement, not prohibited in the regulations and agreed by the tenant in advance, a landlord can recharge. Is that the same for LPT?
Click to expand...
No, LPT is owed by the property owner and not the responsibility of the tenant(s). He or she needs to price this and any other predicted costs into the rent when setting it. Its not like LPT was introduced yesterday, its been around for a decade now.
 
Irish.D said:
Breach of RPZ resulted in evicition end up in High Court and landlord has to pay back .


IView attachment 9951View attachment 9950
View attachment 9958
View attachment 9957



View attachment 9956
Click to expand...
This one is wild and I never thought I'd hear a judgment about whether or not the second landlord requires the home as a "pied a terre" in a judicial review:
"The opinion does not support the notion that the second landlord requires a pied à-terre where she might lie down or rest (“a place that’s beside work that I can use to go and lie down if I’m not feeling well”)."
Quite astonishing though that the landlords perceived themselves as not being bound by the RPZ rules with regard to setting the new rent, and thought they could get away with a retaliatory eviction.
 
How would these arguments hold up if the landlord has changed as opposed to the same landlord has changed their ongoing policy? Same end result in court I suspect?
 
presidenttttt said:
How would these arguments hold up if the landlord has changed as opposed to the same landlord has changed their ongoing policy? Same end result in court I suspect?
Click to expand...
A change of landlord does not alter terms of an existing tenancy.
 
Correct - gets misunderstood sometimes, but a landlord acquiring an existing tenancy acquires the tenancy as is. And yes, same end result in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register